Sawbridgeworth Town Council's Response to EHDC Draft District Plan
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sawbridgeworth Town Council Sayesbury Manor, Bell Street, Sawbridgeworth Hertfordshire CM21 9AN Tel: 01279 724537 MAYOR Fax: 01279 726966 Cllr Mrs Angela Alder e-mail: [email protected] TOWN CLERK web: www.sawbridgeworth-tc.gov.uk Richard Bowran BSc.(Hons) MILCM Response by Sawbridgeworth Town Council to the East Herts District Council Draft District Plan Preferred Options Consultation STC Response to EHDC Plan 150521 Page 1 Preamble Sawbridgeworth Town Council has held three open days over the period of the Consultation to learn the views of the parishioners of the town on the subject of the Preferred Options contained in the East Herts District Council Draft District Plan (DDP). The first two were held on the Farmers’ Market days on Saturday 01 March and Saturday 05 April 2014. The third took place as an integral part of the Annual Town Meeting which was held on Monday 14 April 2014. The role of the Town Council at this stage is to respond to the Preferred Option document. It is not the intention of the Town Council to be negative, however STC endorses the views of the large number of respondents who have already aired their views through the open days held at the Town Council and consultation at the Annual Town Meeting. Introduction There are three principal areas in the Preferred Options Consultation that are of concern parishioners of Sawbridgeworth. They are: Chapter 8: Sawbridgeworth Chapter 10: Villages Chapter 12: The Gilston Area These will be commented upon in turn, however, the general tenure of opinion must first be considered. STC Response to EHDC Plan 150521 Page 2 Executive Summary General The key areas of concern of a general nature that is reflected by consultation with local people are: There is a need for a bypass before increasing housing since the existing road network is at saturation level There is a need for improved transport links, without which there is no point in housing more people in the area (para 8.1.1) It is fundamental that in future any “affordable” homes should be made available for local people as a priority. This principle should be enshrined in Policy. (para 8.1.5) There are alternative sites that must be considered in addition to those highlighted in the Preferred Options statement. A number of the points made in the Stop Harlow North (SHN) response are relevant. West Road The responses of over 250 entries to the portal shows that the key areas of concern in the SAWB2 and SAWB3 Preferred sites are: Traffic access Schools Reduction of Green Field spacing between towns Air pollution Threat to watercourses Surgery capacity Not needed to support employment STC Response to EHDC Plan 150521 Page 3 Villages Irrational to separate Spellbrook from Sawbridgeworth Hayter is a major employer in the area (170) – key to economic growth Not practical to develop a discrete Neighbourhood Plan Gilston Area An unsustainable development No exceptional circumstances to justify a change in the Green Belt Boundary Devastates landscape integrity Infrastructure deficit Exceeds environmental capacity Devastating effects of cumulative development STC Response to EHDC Plan 150521 Page 4 Chapter 8: Sawbridgeworth As a principle STC accepts that future development planning should be conducted to cater for future needs but must also be mindful of the existing communities. STC believes there should be provision within the plan for affordable homes to be made available expressly for local people. It is acknowledged that if Sawbridgeworth is to follow the spirit of the DDP in providing a framework for future development to meet the expected housing needs to 2031, then a share of this development can be expected within the Town. We do not believe that the current single geographical site focus on one site either side of West Road is tenable as there are no possible measures to mitigate the acute transport issues such a development would cause on a constricted residential road. If the volume of building at the level indicated as 400 unit is justified, then consideration should be given to dispersing the units to other sites in a way that the road transport infrastructure can be amended. In order to preserve the principle of the Green Belt it would be expected that the DDP would seek to compensate for Green Belt land compromised by these sites by including the equivalent areas in a re-ordered boundary. It is acknowledged that the rail transport is currently running at capacity on the Cambridge – London Liverpool Street line and is therefore a constricting factor. It is noted that without a s106 Agreement to enforce some contribution from developers to support reinforcement of local infrastructure the proposed development would exert unacceptable; stress and destabilise the existing Health, Education and utility services. Stop Harlow North – In general terms the development of prime farming land rather than lower classed land would seem to be in conflict with the NPPPF para 12. The specified development area lies immediately under the southerly landing approach flight path of London Stansted airport where planes pass at 5000 feet. The DDP seems focused on homes rather than correlating housing needs with centres of employment which would promote the plan as a sustainable solution by aiming to reduce out-commuting and one of the greatest pressures on transport provision. STC Response to EHDC Plan 150521 Page 5 West Road Area The role of the Town Council at this stage is to respond to the Preferred Option document. It is not the intention of the Town Council to be negative, however STC endorses the views of the large number of respondents who have already aired their views through the open days held at the Town Council and consultation at the Annual Town Meeting. The overwhelming view was to object to the West Road proposals (SAWB2 and SAWB3) in their present form. The main thrust of objection to what is considered to be an ill-considered set of options are infrastructure pressures and the impact on quality of the environment and life. Specific issues are: Traffic access There clearly is no practical way of mitigating the road connection issues which would result from sitting 400 additional home on a local residential road/lane coupled with congestion problems on the adjoining trunk road. The specific statement (para 8.2.8) shows a misunderstanding of the locality. Education School places are clearly and demonstrably under pressure as evidenced by current reports (April/May 2014) of the failure to provide local places for local children. The provision of an additional form of entry at Mandeville School (para 8.1.6) is clearly inadequate. There is no provision for developing further places in anticipation of further demand on places. Reduction of Green Field spacing between towns The Urban Extension proposed involves the change in Green Belt boundaries and reduces the buffer zone between towns (para 8.1.3). The proposal will not prevent urban sprawl (para 4.1.1) Air pollution This has been acknowledged as a significant problem and is naturally associated with traffic problems and the additional congestion that will be inevitable under the Preferred Option proposals. (para 8.1.1) Threat to watercourses The statement made in the section subsequent to (para 8.2.8) acknowledges the significant issues relating to urban drainage and sewerage which will be STC Response to EHDC Plan 150521 Page 6 introduced by replacing the adequacy of the natural environment by an urban extension to the town Surgery capacity Although acknowledging the increase in demand for services including healthcare, even the current (May 2014) planning application for increasing the capacity of the Central Surgery will serve only to play catch up on current inadequacies and is woefully inadequate for future growth.(para 8.5.2) Not needed to support employment The statement that Sawbridgeworth has a limited employment offer (para 8.1.8) (para 8.3.2) suggests that the proposals at SAWB2 and SAWB3 are disproportionate. To mitigate the impact upon the area other sites should be considered. For example it is important to the historic environment of the area that a site of international importance is considered and protected. (para 8.1.9) Rivers Orchard Area The Rivers Orchard Site is a site of international renown and of great historical importance for the reasons outlined here. It is the wish of the Town Council that the site be preserved in perpetuity as a community asset and to be enhanced by regular maintenance and provision of a visitors centre. In recent years a Friends Group ,later to become Rivers Nursery Site and Orchard Group had undertaken voluntary supervision of the site and had promoted it’s interest. In March 2014 an announcement was made that the RNSOG intended to dissolve and would cease activity. This has now been replaced by the newly formed Rivers Heritage Site and Orchard. The contractual owner, Deville Estates, has published a desire to develop part of the site and we believe they intend to respond to the consultation. They have expressed an intention to cede a large proportion of the site to the community as part of the proposition to develop. The Town Council’s view is that ideally the whole of the current site should be preserved for community use. However we should like to keep an open mind on the matter and see what the land owner has in mind in terms of what may be protected in perpetuity. We should reserve judgment therefore based on the nature of the offer, the desires of the local community following consultation, and the suitability of the site for the proposed uses. STC Response to EHDC Plan 150521 Page 7 Rivers Nursery was established by John Rivers who came to Sawbridgeworth from Berkshire.